Calcutta High Court: In an application alleging police inaction in investigating the case, seeking police protection for herself and her aged mother, and requesting the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, a single-judge bench comprising of Jay Sengupta, J., while acknowledging the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the victim’s suicide and the ongoing investigation, advised the petitioner to cooperate, and the option to pursue bail cancellation was left open.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed an application alleging police inaction in investigating a case involving the suicide of the petitioner’s twin sister, blaming the accused for financial exploitation and torture leading to suicide. The police initiated a case on 06-05-2023, after the petitioner’s complaint, despite the suicide note being seized on 02-05-2023. The investigation was deemed perfunctory and biased, and an earlier court order transferred the investigation to the Detective Department, Lalbazar, citing discrepancies in handling evidence. The petitioner sought police protection for herself and her aged mother, along with the cancellation of bail granted to the accused. The petitioner withdrew the prayer for bail cancellation during the proceedings.
The petitioner contended that the investigation was flawed, with delayed submission of the suicide note to handwriting experts and incomplete interrogation of the accused. It was claimed that the accused’s actions, including controlling finances and inflicting torture, led to the suicide of her twin sister.
The private respondents denied involvement in the investigation, emphasising the victim’s conversion to Islam and interfaith marriage. The State defended the investigation’s thoroughness, citing a forensic report and ongoing inquiries into property-related issues linked to the victim’s death.
The Court noted discrepancies in the investigation, including the suicide note not being part of the case diary. The private respondents disclaimed involvement in the investigation, and the Court found the prayer for bail cancellation not maintainable.
The Court observed that the State represented a thorough investigation, with necessary documents, witness examinations, and inclusion of the suicide note in the case diary. The Court also observed that the victim’s death was linked to financial troubles, with the husband mortgaging her properties and failing to service the dues.
The Court encouraged the petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The Court granted petitioner the option to seek bail cancellation before an appropriate forum if deemed necessary. The Court disposed of the writ petition, deeming the allegations not admitted due to the absence of affidavits.
[Nivedita Bhattacharjee v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5422, order dated 20-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Jay Sengupta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee Ld.SSC., Ms. Ipsita Banerjee, Mr. Tarak Karan, Counsel for the State
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ms. Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Mr. Ayanabha Raha, Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Saurabh Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent 7 to 14
